James R. Mirick sets the record straight on things he cares about

Opening the Campaign Money Hydrant?

Before I say anything else, let me first note that in the last presidential election, political spending in the US was roughly equivalent to the amount Americans spend annually on chewing gum. That is an important level-set for this discussion.

So, the Supreme Court (which doesn’t have to run for re-election) has decided that corporations and unions, which are legal entities created in order to make money and carry out other functions, are equivalent for campaign spending to real people, and so should be able to spend directly in unlimited amounts of money to promote causes or candidates. This decision is a pretty heroic leap from the constitution or from any existing case law precedent; after all, corporations can’t vote in the election, so they aren’t all that equivalent to biological people, but the court decided 5-4 along conservative – liberal lines (whatever they are) and so for now it’s the law.

Don’t get me wrong, I think this is bad law. Corporations are not actual people, they are organizations with vast resources in money and talent and they never blink, 24-7, as they pursue their self-serving objectives. Because of these resources, they should be subject to limitations on the extent to which they can directly enter into the political process. Not prevented from participating, mind you, but limited. But however unfortunate this ruling is, it isn’t the end of the world, for a couple of reasons.

Corporate spending on campaigns or issues is at least to some extent self-limited by the corporation’s desire not to take a politically-unpopular position and risk alienating both customers and employees who disagree with it. Unpopular positions can of course be heavily spun to the public and delivered with day-and-night pounding advertisements, but having worked inside large corporations most of my career I can just say that this is more difficult to successfully execute than you might think. And of course, political spending competes with product advertising, machinery investment, and other pressing demands for capital and hence is going to be viewed with a jaundiced eye by stockholders.

The second reason is more interesting, and it comes from the actual human people who head these corporations. A few days after the Court issued their ruling, a group called Fair Elections Now sent a letter to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle complaining that this new ruling will cause congressmen to hammer them even more than they do now, for contributions to counter the likely flood of corporate advertising. About 40 executives from the likes of Hasbro, Delta Airlines, Seagrams, Crate and Barrel, Ben & Jerry’s, Men’s Wearhouse, and Playboy Enterprises said in the letter,

Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors . . . and often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from Members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system, due to the court’s decision, the fundraising pressure on Members of Congress will only increase . . .

This is actually a very healthy development — people who are in a position to make corporate policy but who are impacted personally in other ways, are saying, “stop this right now.” So maybe, just maybe, we will see some actual legislation passed that will undercut the Court’s ruling.

But ultimate it falls back to the electorate. We, as a nation, need to increase our attention span and actually study these issues and make up our minds about them, and not be swayed by week-before-the-election advertising. We need to stop being swayed by partisans screaming “death panels!” and other patent lies. We need to belly up to our responsibilities, personally, and make the things we want happen.